Temporary, therefore permanent

A temporary appointment, by its very nature, is an agreement with defined terms – duration, duties, pay, and conditions for termination. It does not confer a right to permanency, nor does it guarantee employment beyond its tenure. The purpose of such arrangements is clear: to meet specific needs for a limited time, while permanent posts must follow established rules of fair opportunity. To treat a temporary position as something more than this is to strip the word of its very meaning.
The landmark case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) clarified the constitutional position on temporary and irregular appointments. The Supreme Court held that public employment must adhere strictly to the principles of equality and fair competition as outlined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It ruled that temporary or casual employees cannot claim permanent status merely by virtue of long service, as this would bypass open recruitment and deny equal opportunity to others.
However, recognizing exceptional circumstances, the Court permitted a “one-time measure” for workers who had served continuously for over 10 years in duly sanctioned posts, provided they were appointed against genuine vacancies and not through informal channels.
This exception aimed to balance fairness and equality with the need to provide relief to long-serving employees who, despite their irregular appointments, had become an integral part of the workforce. At the same time, the judgment cautioned that such dispensation was an exception, not a precedent, and could not become a recurring practice.
In State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010), the Court clarified that the Umadevi exception should not be denied on technical grounds. Workers who had served continuously for 10 years in sanctioned posts without regular recruitment could not simply be discarded, as doing so would amount to State exploitation under the guise of “temporary” employment. Yet, the Court reiterated that this safeguard was part of the one-time regularization envisioned in Umadevi, not a license for perpetual relaxation. In today’s context, this means that while exploitation of temporary workers must be checked, the misuse of “special dispensations” as routine practice erodes both the constitutional scheme of equal opportunity and the integrity of temporary arrangements themselves.
While respecting these legal rulings, there are arguments advanced on the grounds of compassion or the dedicated efforts of temporary employees, rather than on their legal entitlements. No one denies that these employees have worked with dedication, and in times of crisis, many have risked their lives and carried critical responsibilities on their shoulders.
Their effort and sacrifice deserve respect, recognition, and even additional weightage in future recruitment. Yet, to convert this into a claim for automatic regularization is to confuse gratitude with legality. If hardship, sacrifice, or moral claims alone were to become the grounds for permanency, then a “slippery slope” opens up: every profession marked by high risk and arduous duty could demand the same treatment outside the recruitment framework. This would unravel the very principle of equality of opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Compassion and moral debt may inform policy choices, such as awarding bonus marks, age relaxation, or consideration of experience, but they cannot override the rule of law.
The deeper problem lies not with the workers, but with the system itself, which too often blurs the line between temporary and permanent. When the system repeatedly uses a one-time exception or invokes sympathy as justification, the word “temporary” loses all meaning. Again, when the system fails to advertise permanent recruitment and instead extends temporary appointments over many years, it creates the very grounds for compassion, fostering sympathy for workers’ hard work and dedication while undermining the established rules that govern permanent posts.
In such moments, the state fails to honor both the spirit of the Constitution and the clarity of its own agreements. Though defined as temporary, these appointments in many cases endure for years, gradually taking on the weight and presence of permanence, quietly revealing the paradox: temporary, therefore permanent.
Dr. Avothung Ezung
Post-Doctoral Fellow (ICPR)
Dept. of Philosophy
NEHU, Shillong